James S. A. Green

The macroscopic appearances of florid cystitis cystica et glandularis can be mistaken for malignancy, and it is therefore important to perform a prompt resection to confirm the histological diagnosis and exclude sinister pathology.

High-quality leadership and chairing skills are vital for good performance in multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs), but no instruments currently exist for assessing and improving these skills.

Health services research (HSR) is the science of the evaluation and improvement of health care provision. HSR can be used by health care organisations to develop and understand administrative, financial and organisational processes in order to improve efficacy of clinical treatments, efficiency of their delivery, and ultimately patient outcomes. HSR applies both quantitative and qualitative methodology, utilising data collected from real-life clinical practice, rather than the confines of more controlled traditional efficacy trials. With new and developing therapies, HSR provides an opportunity to enhance the delivery of cost-effective and efficient health care. Level of evidence: Not applicable (educational article).

In many health care systems globally, cancer care is driven by multidisciplinary cancer teams (MDTs). A large number of studies in the past few years and across different literature have been performed to better understand how these teams work and how they manage patient care. The aim of our literature review is to synthesize current scientific and clinical understanding on cancer MDTs and their organization; this, in turn, should provide an up-to-date summary of the current knowledge that those planning or leading cancer services can use as a guide for service implementation or improvement. We describe the characteristics of an effective MDT and factors that influence how these teams work. A range of factors pertaining to teamwork, availability of patient information, leadership, team and meeting management, and workload can affect how well MDTs are implemented within patient care. We also review how to assess and improve these teams. We present a range of instruments designed to be used with cancer MDTs – including observational tools, self-assessments, and checklists. We conclude with a practical outline of what appears to be the best practices to implement (Dos) and practices to avoid (Don’ts) when setting up MDT-driven cancer care.

Despite numerous publications stating the importance of multidisciplinary care for women with pre-existing medical conditions, there is a lack of evidence regarding structure or processes of multidisciplinary working, nor impact on maternal or infant outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of guidelines for multidisciplinary team (MDT) management in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac conditions. These conditions were selected as exemplars of increasingly common medical conditions in pregnancy for which MDT management is recommended to prevent or reduce adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. National on-line survey sent to clinicians responsible for management or referral of women with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac conditions in UK National Health Service (NHS) maternity units. The survey comprised questions regarding the organisation of MDT management for women with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac conditions. Content was informed by national guidance. One hundred seventy-nine responses were received, covering all health regions in England (162 responses) and 17 responses from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 132 (74%) related to women with diabetes and 123 (69%) to women with cardiac conditions. MDT referral was reportedly standard practice in most hospitals, particularly for women with pre-existing diabetes (88% of responses vs. 63% for cardiac) but there was wide variation in relation to MDT membership, timing of referral and working practices. These inconsistencies were evident within and between maternity units across the UK. Reported membership was medically dominated and often in the absence of midwifery/nursing and other allied health professionals. Less than half of MDTs for women with diabetes met the recommendations for membership in national guidance, and although two thirds of MDTs for women with cardiac disease met the core recommendations for membership, most did not report having the extended members: midwives, neonatologists or intensivists. The wide diversity of organisational management for women with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac conditions is of concern and merits more detailed inquiry. Evidence is also required to support and better define the recommendations for MDT care.

Objectives: Walking is an adaptable, inexpensive and accessible form of physical activity. However, its impact on quality of life (QoL) and symptom severity in people with advanced cancer is unknown. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a community-based walking intervention to enhance QoL in people with recurrent/metastatic cancer. Design: We used a mixed-methods design comprising a 2-centre RCT and nested qualitative interviews. Participants: Patients with advanced breast, prostate, gynaecological or haematological cancers randomised 1:1 between intervention and usual care. Intervention: The intervention comprised Macmillan's ‘Move More’ information, a short motivational interview with a recommendation to walk for at least 30 min on alternate days and attend a volunteer-led group walk weekly. Outcomes: We assessed feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and RCT by evaluating study processes (rates of recruitment, consent, retention, adherence and adverse events), and using end-of-study questionnaires and qualitative interviews. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assessing QoL, activity, fatigue, mood and self-efficacy were completed at baseline and 6, 12 and 24 weeks. Results: We recruited 42 (38%) eligible participants. Recruitment was lower than anticipated (goal n=60), the most commonly reported reason being unable to commit to walking groups (n=19). Randomisation procedures worked well with groups evenly matched for age, sex and activity. By week 24, there was a 45% attrition rate. Most PROMs while acceptable were not sensitive to change and did not capture key benefits. Conclusions: The intervention was acceptable, well tolerated and the study design was judged acceptable and feasible. Results are encouraging and demonstrate that exercise was popular and conveyed benefit to participants. Consequently, an effectiveness RCT is warranted, with some modifications to the intervention to include greater tailoring and more appropriate PROMs selected. Trial registration number: ISRCTN42072606 .

Teamwork is essential for addressing many of the challenges that arise in the coordination and delivery of cancer care, especially for the problems that are presented by patients who cross geographic boundaries and enter and exit multiple health care systems at various times during their cancer care journeys. The problem of coordinating the care of patients with cancer is further complicated by the growing number of treatment options and modalities, incompatibilities among the vast variety of technology platforms that have recently been adopted by the health care industry, and competing and misaligned incentives for providers and systems. Here we examine the issue of regional care coordination in cancer through the prism of a real patient journey. This article will synthesize and elaborate on existing knowledge about coordination approaches for complex systems, in particular, in general and cancer care multidisciplinary teams; define elements of coordination derived from organizational psychology and human factors research that are applicable to team-based cancer care delivery; and suggest approaches for improving multidisciplinary team coordination in regional cancer care delivery and avenues for future research. The phenomenon of the mobile, multisystem patient represents a growing challenge in cancer care. Paradoxically, development of high-quality, high-volume centers of excellence and the ease of virtual communication and data sharing by using electronic medical records have introduced significant barriers to effective team-based cancer care. These challenges urgently require solutions.

In many healthcare systems, treatment recommendations for cancer patients are formulated by multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs). Evidence suggests that interdisciplinary contributions to case reviews in the meetings are unequal and information-sharing suboptimal, with biomedical information dominating over information on patient comorbidities and psychosocial factors. This study aimed to evaluate how different elements of the decision process affect the teams' ability to reach a decision on first case review. This was an observational quantitative assessment of 1045 case reviews from 2010 to 2014 in cancer MTBs using a validated tool, the Metric for the Observation of Decision-making. This tool allows evaluation of the quality of information presentation (case history, radiological, pathological, and psychosocial information, comorbidities, and patient views), and contribution to discussion by individual core specialties (surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, and specialist cancer nurses). The teams' ability to reach a decision was a dichotomous outcome variable (yes/no). Using multiple logistic regression analysis, the significant positive predictors of the teams' ability to reach a decision were patient psychosocial information (odds ratio [OR] 1.35) and the inputs of surgeons (OR 1.62), radiologists (OR 1.48), pathologists (OR 1.23), and oncologists (OR 1.13). The significant negative predictors were patient comorbidity information (OR 0.83) and nursing inputs (OR 0.87). Multidisciplinary inputs into case reviews and patient psychosocial information stimulate decision making, thereby reinforcing the role of MTBs in cancer care in processing such information. Information on patients' comorbidities, as well as nursing inputs, make decision making harder, possibly indicating that a case is complex and requires more detailed review. Research should further define case complexity and determine ways to better integrate patient psychosocial information into decision making.